Damage Prevention Toolbox

(1)

Damage Prevention Toolbox

Geoff Price

Chevron Pipe Line Company

(2)

Excavation Damage

Excavation damage is a leading cause of

serious pipeline incidents.

(3)

CGA DIRT - Root Causes



One Call Notification Practices

Not Sufficient

 No notification made to the One-Call Center

 Notification to one-call center made, but not sufficient  Wrong information provided to One-Call

Center



Excavation Practices Not Sufficient

 Failure to maintain marks

 Failure to support exposed facilities  Failure to use hand tools where required  Failure to test-hole (pot-hole)

 Improper backfilling practices  Failure to maintain clearance

 Other insufficient excavation practices



Locating Practices Not Sufficient

 Facility could not be found or located  Facility marking or location not sufficient  Facility was not located or marked  Incorrect facility records/maps



Miscellaneous Root Causes

 One-Call Center error  Abandoned facility  Deteriorated facility  Previous damage

(4)

Shared Learnings & Practices

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org 4

DP

Toolbox

BP

Chevron

Colonial

Enbridge

Kinder

Morgan Magellan

Shell

Sunoco

Allegro

(5)

Company

Member

BP Pipeline

Bobby Roye

BP Pipeline

Larry Stansifer

Chevron Pipe Line Company

Geoff Price

Colonial Pipeline

Jessie Husband

Enbridge

Warren Loper

Enterprise Products Operating LLC

Devin Hotzel

Kinder Morgan

Buzz Fant

Kinder Morgan

Jaime Hernandez

Magellan PL

Dyan Gillean

Marathon PL

Kevin Sabol

Marathon PL

Miriam Kuhn

Plains All American

Sheryl Nguyen

Shell Pipeline Company LP

Gweneyette Broussard

Sunoco Pipeline L.P.

Kevin E. Docherty

Allegro Energy

Cheryl Trench

RCP Inc

Bill Byrd

RCP Inc

Jennifer Cooper

(6)



Collection of shared learnings and practices for onshore,

hazardous liquid transmission pipeline operation.



Includes documents and examples from operators:



Toolbox can be used by an operator as information to be

considered when analyzing, reviewing/modifying existing

procedures, and/or following an investigation.

1220 L Street, NW • Washington, DC 20005-4070 • www.api.org



Forms



Reports



Procedures



Correspondences



Other relevant materials

.

Not intended to be utilized as a recommended practice or basis for regulation.

(7)

Toolbox Topics

One-Call Notification Screening

One-Call Notifications Response and Communication

Operator One-Call Ticket Management Systems

One-Call Quality Assurance

Line Locating and Temporary Marking

Line Locating Quality Assurance

Excavation Monitoring and Observation

Pipeline Depth of Cover

ROW Patrol & Response

ROW Usage by Landowner

Crossing & Encroachment Agreements and Correspondence

Unauthorized Activities

(8)

Toolbox Website:

www.edptoolbox.org

Toolbox Email:

[email protected]

(9)

One Call Quality Assurance

(10)

Pr

ocess centered approach...designed to

identify& eliminate systematic error through frequent

review & reporting

Mapping

Reporting Training

(11)

Mapping



_{Map Accuracy}



Horizontal



Attribute



_{Map Review}



CDC Review



Centerline Review

(12)

Mapping

CONSIDERATIONS:

• Is there a process for managing all centerline changes that includes the proper change notification to all One Call stakeholders?

• Are frequent buffer review meetings scheduled with all One Call stakeholders to account for changes in centerline geometry?

• Does a process exist for updating One Call coverage for newly acquired, divested, or abandoned lines?

• Is there a process to review, update, and validate current One Call coverage at the State One Call Centers?

• Do One Call stakeholders know the buffer submission requirements at each state One Call Center? What data format is required? What coordinate system is required? Is a datum transformation necessary?

• Does the Operator have a competent person in place to oversee buffer management and submissions, one that understands GIS data management and the nuance of coordinates systems and their transformation methods?

(13)

Reporting



_{Ticket Screening}



Appropriate criteria used?



_{Outgoing Communication}



Good Documentation?



_Effort



Workload balancing

opportunities

(14)

Reporting

CONSIDERATIONS:

• Count of Tickets per Month, per Quarter, per Year.

• Tickets Per Mile of Pipe

• Ratio of tickets per locator

• Outstanding Tickets/Past Due Tickets

• Monitor variability in ticket volumes (monthly, seasonal)

• Number of Positive Responses

• Average and Median Time for Positive Responses

• Percentage Marked

• Percentage Update Tickets (Ticket Extensions)

• Ticket Type (regular, emergency, update, etc.)

(15)

Reporting

CONSIDERATIONS (continued):

• Tickets with pictures attached

• Drove to Field (Y/N)

• Method of Clearing (Map, Contact, Site Visit)

• Method of Marking (paint, pin flags, cane poles)

• Distributed Safe Digging Literature (Y/N)

• Required Crossing Agreement (Y/N)

• Daily Audit of Tickets Received by Operator vs. Tickets Sent from One Call center

(16)

Training



_{GIS Competency}



_{Ticket Management}



_{Proprietary Tools}

(17)

Training

CONSIDERATIONS:

• Are designated personnel adequately trained in the tools and software that supports the management, submission, and review of One Call mapping files?

• Does the One Call buffer review process require any specialized training that includes editing or confirming coverage using any proprietary One Call Center mapping software?

• Are designated personnel adequately trained in the tools and software that supports the configuration of reports and metrics identified for One Call Quality Assurance reviews?